It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"The chemistry of the world's oceans is changing at a rate not seen for 65 million years"-UN

page: 1
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:50 AM
link   
Say goodbye to your local fish and chip store.

The chemistry of the world's oceans is changing at a rate not seen for 65 million years, with far-reaching implications for marine biodiversity and food security, according to a new United Nations study released Thursday.

edition.cnn.com...

"Ocean acidification is yet another red flag being raised, carrying planetary health warnings about the uncontrolled growth in greenhouse gas emissions" ... OR www.abovetopsecret.com...


Hey guys what else happened around 65 million years ago? Wasnt there something big that happened? I forget

edit on 3-12-2010 by rajaten because: ok




posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by rajaten
 


Not surprised with all the oil spills and then dispersants they are pumping into our oceans.
Maybe all the chemical waste seeping in helps too..

The will blame the average Joe and leave the big corps alone as usual..
Maybe tax us when we go to the beach..



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
"Tropical reefs provide shelter and food for around a quarter of all known marine fish species, according to the U.N. report, while over one billion people rely on fish as a key source of protein."



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:01 AM
link   
everything is happening at such a fast pace now,
It's like bam bam bam hard to keep up.
Terrifying to behold. the wheels are coming off
at break neck speed.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:03 AM
link   
Nice find Raja, thanks for sharing. This report is very disturbing indeed, especially considering it came from the UN. I love my seafood, so I hope this isn't as bad as it sounds....oh, and what's the bet this is linked to BP's mass dispersal of chems into the gulf? Nah...



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Raja,

Do you think this has anything to do with synthia ?
The rumour is that it is mutating everything that it
comes in contact with.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:11 AM
link   
Could this be just the edge they need for GMO salmon? I don't think it went over to well in it's trial stages of "public release". I don't know how much money they have invested in the research and development of GMO salmon, but I imagine it's a pretty penny. And might they have other species up their sleeve?
If you can convince the people they are going to starve if they don't accept your mutant fish, then.....

That is assuming there is actually a conspiracy to be found in this release.

I am in no way saying what they are reporting isn't true, and the implications beyond my little "theory" are not profound.



edit on 3-12-2010 by recycled because: added content



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by WhizPhiz
Nice find Raja, thanks for sharing. This report is very disturbing indeed, especially considering it came from the UN. I love my seafood, so I hope this isn't as bad as it sounds....oh, and what's the bet this is linked to BP's mass dispersal of chems into the gulf? Nah...


haha yeh I bet that has nothing at all to do with it. Or the gulf stream stopping?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:18 AM
link   

edit on 3-12-2010 by rajaten because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by BrainGarden
Raja,

Do you think this has anything to do with synthia ?
The rumour is that it is mutating everything that it
comes in contact with.


Is that the artificial lifeform created by Craig Venter?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:39 AM
link   
A synthetic monster that BP
is using .It's supposed to eat the oil.
But, from what I'm hearing It's been mutating
everything from metal to basic organisms to
you name it. I'm not a scientist though,
I do not know how much truth is in it. but,
If it's something that BP has pulled out of their
hat, can any good come from it ?(google it)
Lots of people know more than me.

Peace



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:47 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:51 AM
link   
How did they know that it was not seen in 65 million years? The last 1million years that I was here, I also saw some chemical changes in the ocean.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 02:54 AM
link   
This is definitely not a positive sign as there is more acids in the waters there will be less habitats for sea creatures leading to depopulated oceans, substantial loss for the fishing industry, and hunger among millions of people.

As with everything in life there is a positive side as particular animals will benefit from lower Ph levels in the waters such as crabs as noted in the article.

If this is proven to be the result of human CO2 emissions as they are claiming then we have a quite serious problem occurring which has been created by human activity. Human pollution has critically damaged our entire ecosystem ranging from our air, our skies, our health, our waters, almost everything has been polluted by reckless manufacturing and human ‘innovation’.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:04 AM
link   
Hmm....we all know what is alleged to happen every 65 million years



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 03:23 AM
link   
reply to post by FermiFlux
 


OH Thats right!
en.wikipedia.org...
"The Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event, which occurred approximately 65.5 million years ago (Ma), was a large-scale mass extinction of animal and plant species in a geologically short period of time. "

Asteroid Impact 65 Million Years Ago Triggered A Global Hail Of Carbon Beads
www.sciencedaily.com...

ooo exciting



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   
lol, could the U.N. be any more blatant about what they have discovered the end result these poluted oceans will bring?

Could the U.N. be any more blatant about who they have discovered is responsible for thier findings? Sure, they called it 'human' emmissions - why not just come out and tell it like is? B.P. emmissions?...

There, now we can all rest easier knowing the facts, right?



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:05 AM
link   
'No Fish Left Behind' Approach Leaves Earth With Nowhere Left to Fish, Study Finds

Earth has run out of room to expand fisheries, according to a new study led by University of British Columbia researchers that charts the systematic expansion of industrialized fisheries.
www.sciencedaily.com...



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   
reply to post by rajaten
 


Unlike Global warming. This is something I can easily believe and get behind. I never considered the green movement real because all they harped on about was c02 when there are so many other problems we've caused. That need to be dealt with, and can be fixed if we try.

Water salinity is one of the major drivers of weather and a requirement most life on earth. In the coming years fresh water will become an exclusive and very expensive resource.



posted on Dec, 3 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Here is what Richard Courtney says on the subject of ocean acidification:


The oceans are alkaline and may become more neutral, but they cannot become acidic because they are buffered by dissolved calcium.

In other words, “acidification” of the oceans is a physical impossibility and, therefore, it cannot be a “threat to marine life”.

Importantly, the degree of neutralisation of the oceans from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is too small to be measured. Indeed, if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration were to quadruple then the change to ocean surface layer pH would be within the existing variations (both spatial and temporal) of ocean pH.

Simply, the “ocean acidification” scare is a daft fall-back position being adopted by ‘greens’ now the ‘global warming’ scare is ending.

I definitely agree with him with the idea that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is so small compared to the amount of CO2 stored in the oceans it's hard to imagine it having such a dramatically adverse impact. There is around 60 times the amount of CO2 in the oceans as in the atmosphere and we have only (or so we are told) risen the atmospheric concentration by about 130ppm. Ocean acidification is something I think eco-environmentalists are falling back on now that the public's belief in CAGW is waning. By the way, the UN are one of the biggest advocates of CAGW and they set-up the IPCC. Also, as someone else said, how do they know that the changes in the ocean chemistry today are unprecedented over the last 65 million years? I presume they are using paleoclimate data of some sort to reach that conclusion. In any case, I'm going to remain skeptical on this topic.
edit on 3-12-2010 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
11
<<   2 >>

log in

join